quote:Even this early in the design process, it was evident that our new Enterprise was going to be quite different from the ship Kirk commanded on television. And being that different, it seemed logical that it would qualify as a new vessel class. I, therefore, proposed that it be the first in a line of new 'Enterprise Class' starships, initiating a new number series starting with: NCC-1800. By placing those kinds of graphics on sketches like this, I was hoping to suggest that our new Enterprise would also carry its own Work Bees for smaller missions in deep space.
Given his wording, I'm pretty sure that it's still the original vessel, but the extensive refit modifications required a new number. At least that was Probert's thinking, anyway.
Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Both Jeffries and Probert, althought they had different ideas of how it would manifest. It was the same ship, but so extensively refitted it was decommissioned and recommissioned under a different number -- until Gene saw and said "it has to be 1701".
The 1800 block was later assigned ot the Miranda class. And a good thing, too. The Intrepid was NCC-1831, so it couldn't have been an Enterprise-class ship. I gave the Enterprise class the 2300 block, hence the number I gave way above.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
"NCC-2500? Nuh-uh. There's no way Starfleet production was that slow, even all the way back then, even despite the relatively short life-span of the -A before she was replaced."
Holy shit guys, I was just spouting stuff, I didn't expect you to take me seriously!
posted
1831, Mim. The wall chart has a slightly different numeral for that ship than the other 16xx registries. This is why Matt didn't use either a 6 or an 8 in the Enterprise's registry. *heh*
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Back to the same old question. The Enterprise-A, was she a new ship or a refit. In the end of Star Trek IV the bridge display show the ship had transwarp, and in Star Trek V Scotty's shakedown report. "I think this new ship was put together by monkeys. Oh, she's got a fine engine, but half the doors won't open, and guess whose job it is to makw it right?" but why they decommissioned this ship so eary, new or refit, is beyond me!
Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
("Clearly" the A was a refit, since it was decommissioned relatively quickly. One might postulate that the whole refit project was largely intended to keep aging Constitutions in the field just long enough to cover the gap between new-build Constitutions and Excelsiors.)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: 1831, Mim. The wall chart has a slightly different numeral for that ship than the other 16xx registries. This is why Matt didn't use either a 6 or an 8 in the Enterprise's registry. *heh*
--Jonah
According to Greg Jein, who had access to an actual film clip from the episode, it's 1631. That was the basis for why it was changed in the later Encyclopedia. The reason why it looks different may be because of a piece of dust or something to that effect. Perhaps the upcoming HD-DVDs will tell more...
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
...In any case, NCC-1831 is one of the poorest candidates for Intrepid there - why should Stone pull out a ship that is 120% complete to give priority to the Enterprise?
NCC-1709 would be my favorite there. Since those ships aren't in any sort of registry number order, or order of percent completed, they could be in order of arrival, or alphabetic order - or then in order of bumpability, as determined by Stone. The top one would then be the first to get shoved aside.
posted
That looks an awful lot like 1831 to me... Pretty obvious by the slight dimple on the left as compared to 1672, 1684, 1697 further down the chart that have a straight line.
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
To be sure, the font doesn't look completely "stable" to me. Some of the nines seem to have different lower parts from others, for example. There's still too much granularity there to be sure...
How would they have created that lettering back then, anyway? Badass typing machine? Stencilling with cut patterns?
posted
Wasn't it an existing font? Off-the-shelf is often cheaper than scratch-making. And of the two '9's on there, they look the same to me...
And it's 100% complete, with a differently-coloured bar further to the side to indicate something in addition to or besides "completion status". The percentage numbers don't go any higher than 100, and nothing is above that green bar. Probably finished with dockwork and moving out for final outfitting prior to resuming her mission.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I gave the Enterprise class the 2300 block, hence the number I gave way above. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
